- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The media’s role in shaping and defining news in the AFL is entering murky waters.
It now seems that many journalists are not content to gather the news and report it, they now want to create the narrative, shape the heroes, damn the villains and even sometimes play loosely with the truth.
In doing so it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell which stories should be placed in the pages of Australia’s leading newspapers and which stories should be found in the fiction section of the local library.
Last night’s Alan Jones interview with Stephen Dank was another example of this. Jones had clearly done is research – more so than many other journalists who have formed strong opinions about the issue. Gil McLachlan found this out last week when he was interviewed on 2GB by Jones.
However, the interview with Dank was at times bizarre, with Jones stating facts, dates and quotes, and the interviewer, Dank, simply confirming Jones’ statements.
Jones has a view that the ASADA/AFL investigation was corrupt and that the information gathered throughout the interview was manipulated to contrive a suitable outcome for the investigators. This may or may not be true, but any opposing views were left for another time.
I was also interested to read Tim Lane’s article about Essendon in The Age on Easter Sunday. I was particularly interested in his line that many fans shot the messenger (journalists) throughout the saga – as if journalists were simply ‘messengers’ in the story. If only!
The media became part of the story because many took sides on the issue and often offered more opinion and innuendo than fact. They felt obliged to push a particular side of the story and, in many instances, barrack for a particular outcome.
No, fans were not shooting the messenger – we were shooting down poor journalism and crying out for people who will provide fact and not moral sermons from the high ground.
Furthermore, it seems an integral part of the narrative – Essendon’s cooperation in the ASADA investigation – is being completely downplayed (or ignored) by many sections of the media.
Essendon’s cooperation in all of this is a fundamental part of the story. Until told otherwise, Essendon believed they knew what their players had been administered. ASADA told them that what they thought they were getting wasn’t necessarily the case. ‘There’s been foul play at hand,’ they said. ‘Your players may have been exposed to performance enhancing drugs.’
So, Essendon basically threw open their doors to see if ASADA was on the money with their claim. They didn’t hide a thing. They basically said, ‘well, if the players are not receiving what we believe they are, please, come in, take our phones, our computers, interview all of us, take notes, find the truth.’
ASADA, working with the AFL, did all of this, and then somehow some of this information was leaked to the press. Some sections of the press seemed to cheer them on. Hird and Essendon presumably leaked too – in retaliation. Does that make it right? Probably not. But it’s certainly worth noting.
Then of course, the media went after Hird, who, it seems, gave Dank far too much power and even encouraged him to take it to the limit, but not over. Yet, even Hird threw open his doors. He gave them everything he could, told them everything he knew, recounted discussions he’d had and said that he was shocked it had come to this.
He’s been compared to Lance Armstrong by some fans (yes, it’s not just the Essendon fans who have been acting like mindless lunatics throughout all of this). I bet Armstrong wasn’t so obliging with information when the authorities came knocking. No, Hird knew he had nothing to hide. He gave ASADA and the AFL everything they wanted. But he refused to go quietly.
Some journalists have said he never apologised for his governance failures. They said his emotional apology at the press conference following the Tribunal decision was the first time he’s said sorry. I’ve heard him apologise at least three times (probably more). Some journalists might have been away those weeks. Or maybe it didn’t fit into their story line. The Devil can’t be the Devil if he says sorry, can he?
While I did hear Hird say sorry, I haven’t heard an extensive ‘sorry’ from too many others. The President of the time? No. The CEO? No, he’s now working for another elite sporting organisation in Melbourne.
The Football Manager? No. Assistant coaches? No – one’s going to take over from Roosy in a year or two.
Stephen Dank? Hell no. Dean Robinson. Definitely not.
And what about the AFL, who smelt a rat, sent Essendon blood samples overseas for testing, but never actually intervened or spoke up? You’d have to be kidding.
No, no, it’s Hird that most sections of the media (and most opposition fans) were after.
The coach. The head coach. The man who has said sorry, copped a year ban (paid by Essendon with the AFL’s knowledge), had his team booted from the finals series, fined, sanctioned via the draft and had some sections of the media painting him out to be more evil than the Devil. That seemed to be the story they liked the most.
Hird was foolish. He wanted to go too close to the edge. He’s copped it in the neck – even after doing everything ASADA asked. He cooperated with the authorities and provided them with all the information he had. Then when he read everything he’d given to ASADA and the AFL in the papers in the following days and weeks, he fought back and claimed the investigation was illegal.
Personally, I don’t blame him.
Let’s be honest, it’s been a mess. Essendon’s ‘governance’ was sadly and badly lacking. But, so too was good journalism in some sections of the media throughout it. They are separate issues, but both worth noting. It was not the messenger we were shooting. It was the barracking on both sides that we didn’t enjoy.
It is one thing to have an opinion – as Rex Hunt says, an opinion is just an opinion, it’s neither right nor wrong, it’s just an opinion. Indeed this article is an opinion piece.
But to merge opinion within news stories is to create a dangerous union indeed. It can create a myth that people mistake as fact.
That is what has happened too often throughout this sorry saga. While it’s been a hell of a story, it’s hard to tell just which parts of it are true and which parts should be banished to a fiction book ‘based on a true story.’
Sam Duncan (PhD) is a Lecturer in Sports Media at Holmesglen
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.